PubMed · 11655083
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Susan E Hodge. 1995. Paternalistic and protective?. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01408079
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
When drawn into other parties' litigation or investigations, journals often receive requests or subpoenas for confidential peer review documents. We describe reasons for such requests and reasons that journals resist producing confidential documents, ways that journals respond, and steps that journals can take to minimize third-party breaches of journals' confidential processes. We discuss legal principles on which resistance may be based in the United States, including the journalist's privilege, the scholar's privilege, the burdensomeness of response, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which protect against attempts to obtain expert opinion testimony without compensation. Illustrative cases are described in which courts affirmed the confidentiality of peer review conducted by journals.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.